The uncertainties of Pakistan’s political history continue to dog the present. Even as the Pakistan People’s Party-led coalition government moves towards completing its five-year term, sceptics worry that an external push could derail the process.
Are they right?
I analysed the possibility in this space last month, using the rational-choice framework. My argument was that if we accept that all actors are rational, then the continuation of the system is in everyone’s interest.
Arrived just then on the scene Dr Tahir-ul Qadri, huffing and puffing and swearing to bring the house down. The rational-actors theory seemed in a lot of danger. But after four days demonstrating in front of the parliament building, Qadri and his supporters dispersed, having worked out a compromise with the government.
Rational choice has prevailed so far and that is the good news.
Let’s count the pluses. The democratic transition in Pakistan, which began with former General-President Pervez Musharraf’s decision to doff uniform and hold general elections in February 2008 and has gone through the five years of the current PPP-led coalition, is today more stable than most could have predicted a year ago — even days ago.
Second, while the PPP government has not really covered itself in glory as far as pressing issues of governance and public policy are concerned, it has shown a remarkable ability to weather political crises. This has been a function of deft political manoeuvring and the flexibility to make compromises.
The third factor is the judiciary. The bench has been accused on many an occasion of overreaching. That criticism is correct. Yet, a proactive bench has also taken decisions and given verdicts that have kept a check on the executive and the legislature.
Despite predictions that the executive-judiciary tussle could derail the process, there are indicators that both sides, occasional brinkmanship notwithstanding, understand the imperative of not going overboard.
The fourth factor relates to the media and its role. The media — mainstream and social — has been active in keeping a check on the government and its functioning and, more generally, the political parties and their activities. Excesses have been committed and that trend continues.
Similarly, the media so far has successfully evaded attempts to bring it under scrutiny. That needs to change. But on balance it has done a good job. Simply put, it is today more difficult for governments to be ham-handed than they used to be. That cannot be bad.
Fifth, all political parties, whether inside the government or in opposition, and even those not currently in parliament, having boycotted the 2008 elections, are agreed that elections be held and the system must continue.
Parties like the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf advocate reforming the system but accept that such reforms must come from within the system, in keeping with the constitution.
Corollary: nobody wants external intervention into the system through extra-constitutional means, especially by the military as an arbiter.
Sixth, the government and the opposition have managed to agree on some important issues like the formation of an independent Election Commission and its powers as also the method of the formation of a caretaker government that acts as a bridge between the end of a government’s tenure and the formation of the next.
Last but not least, the voter has become more discerning, especially in large urban centres. This means we should expect a change in the voting pattern with younger voters exercising their right based on individual rather than clan and group choices.
Such is still not the case in the rural areas and voting patterns continue to differ among the four federating units based on a number of factors: socio-economic structures, level of development, extent of literacy, local, tribal and clan traditions etcetera. This will likely result in a parliament which will be a mix of the modern and the démodé but that cannot be helped at this stage, given lopsided development processes in the country.
These are significant pluses. The very fact that there is now a consensus that the democratic system must continue removes a great uncertainty that has traditionally been the bane of Pakistani politics.
However, while celebrating the good, we cannot ignore the minuses, passing as we are, still, through a transition. Transitions, as should be evident, are fragile and denote a phase which is not entirely a settled one. Given that, and having accepted that the continuation of the system is in everyone’s interest, it becomes imperative to act to purge the system of its weaknesses.
So, what is it that needs to be reformed?
First, electing a government is just one aspect of making it legitimate. Whether the government should complete its term — defined in the constitution as five years in terms of an upper limit on the period for which it can stay in office — will depend on its performance in office.
To say that government X has been elected for five years and shall complete its tenure without reference to its performance, is a travesty of the very concept of legitimacy the people have granted it. The issue is not to be seen merely in terms of a technicality — five-year tenure — but in normative terms. We haven’t reached that point yet.
Second and allied to the first, is the question of how to get rid of a government that, having been elected, has not performed and is also adamant on completing its term.
Qadri’s strategy of getting his supporters to camp in front of parliament and his demands to the government sharpen the salience of this question. Note that the question and Qadri’s demands retain their relevance even if we reject Qadri for any ulterior motives in making those demands.
Third, how do we create a system that can, while retaining the integrity of its fundamental structures, have the flexibility to address peoples’ issues of concern on occasions when a government, for whatever reasons, appears to remain unaccountable? In other words, how does one make a government accountable if it is not acting in the public interest in and through the laid down procedures.
A related question: what should the people or any new political entities do if old political parties have created a system and locked it down to their advantage — such that it becomes difficult to hold them accountable through strictly legal means?
These are important questions. And while we are agreed that the system must be saved from external shocks, as also that its continuation is important for overall stability, the answers to these questions in term of actual measures are crucial for strengthening the very system we want to continue.
In more ways than one, the strength of Pakistan’s democracy will depend on creating structures that allow the system to address its problems from within and by doing so makes it robust against external shocks.
The writer is a senior journalist and has held several editorial positions including most recently at The Friday Times. He is currently senior adviser, outreach, at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
